Case 2400194/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Murphy v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400194/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedMr J Murphy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJudge Shotter, sitting alone in a public preliminary hearing, ruled on the respondent's strike-out application against the claimant's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, sexual harassment and discrimination on the grounds of protected belief. A substantial number of allegations were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as scandalous or vexatious and having no reasonable prospect of success, including all sex discrimination claims and large blocks of harassment and protected belief allegations.
The remaining claims, including some harassment and protected belief allegations, the constructive unfair dismissal claim, and an application to amend to add new allegations, were not struck out but made subject to deposit orders on the basis they have little reasonable prospect of success. The judge took into account the claimant's means in setting deposit amounts.
A private preliminary hearing on case management was listed for 13 March 2026. PDF text was truncated and individual deposit amounts per allegation were not fully visible in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
6 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Harassment | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Other | Religion or belief | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.